On Wisconsin! (Read 2075 times)

I tend to think union bargaining power has more to do with it than the economy.  The economy waxes and wanes, the tsunami of unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities has been building for decades and has only come to a head now instead of, say, 5 years from now because of the economy.

 

If you project out, the numbers get real scary.  As if they are not currently scary enough.  Like as the ratio of retired public employees grows in relation to the number of current public employees.  This is not a short term problem.

 

I've taken a pretty big interest in this thread for a guy who's never even been to Wisconsin but it's because the same problem exists everywhere and it's no better in my state.  But in MA we have a Gov and state legislature that is all Dems so they'll never take on the unions so directly as this character is.  Our Gov has made some solid proposals on reeling in employee benefits without going directly after union bargaining rights, but I fear it's less of a permanent fix.  And without weakening the unions, the cities and towns really suffer.  In MA there is a state health plan that cities and towns can move their employees to and save tons of money but only a tiny fraction of towns have been able to do it because many of the unions refuse to even discuss it.  So the towns just lay off more good people to try and balance the books.  It's fucking dumb.  Yeah, I'm strongly anti-union.

I agree with this mostly.  As Mikey has been saying it really comes down to the math.  But I think that it's more than just the union and bargaining rights to blame.  Unions don't under fund the pension system by "borrowing" from it and not paying into it.  Unions don't borrow money to balance the state budget.  But a significant amount of union dues go to fund political campaigns, etc.  And it's the public employees who are paying the price.  It's a tale of woe for sure, but times are tough all over so they won't get any sympathy, even if this mess really isn't their fault.

Really, I just think that pensions are not a viable solution.  At all.  They force entities to budget for employees who are retired along with the current workforce.  And with the number of retirees growing as well as the increase in life expectancy, the problem will only get worse.  We need a system where similar to a 401K type deal, where at least the government would be able to budget that year based on the employee base that year.  Retirees are on there own (with their 401K money, of course).  Even if employees did not contribute to the plan it still would be cheaper to fund.

And before I get flamed, my father was a teacher and had a pension (which my mother receives now), plus my wife has been a state employee for years and is impacted by all of this stuff.  I expect that we will be making sacrifices.  I don't like it, but I understand the math.

pre-recession

private sector

http://www.slate.com/id/2134931/

My 2¢.

Like the checks and balances in government, the economy needs a counterweight to concentrated corporate power.  Government sometimes serves that function but as big money increasingly buys our elections, government becomes a lapdog rather than a watchdog, resulting in inadequate regulation and monitoring of everything from Gulf oil rigs to derivatives to food safety.  The Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited money to flow into elections pretty much seals the deal here.

So if government is increasingly bought and paid for, who can serve as that counterweight?  It has to be civil society—those institutions that are neither government nor private sector. Unions, as Krugman notes, are one such useful institution that serves as a counterweight.  In fact, they’re probably the most important…which is precisely why they are in the crosshairs of politicians like Scott Walker (or those who bankroll him) and why this conflict ultimately is not about the budget, it’s about power.

There’s nothing new about this, of course.  Reagan’s firing of PATCO signaled to the private sector that taking out unions was fair game and the government would not interfere.  30 years later, as others have noted, the presence of unions in the private sector has plummeted.  Yes, I know there are multiple factors at work here but try and form a union today and see how long until you’re harassed and fired…illegally. (Heck, even in the midst of the economic boom Human Rights Watch was reporting on labor law violations in the US.)  

In the public sector, though, the employer (government) must actually follow the law and honor workers’ right to representation.  As a result, more public sector workers belong to unions.  The very real budget crises now provides useful pretext for going after this remaining segment of the labor movement.

And it’s working.  Just a couple of years after Wall Street shenanigans brought the economy to the brink of collapse here we are debating the fact that all our troubles are caused by…unions!  It takes a lot of chutzpah to pull that one off.

Like all other social institutions, some unions are terrible (short-sighted, inept, corrupt, etc) but most serve a very useful role that affects people well beyond their members.  I think of them the way Churchill thought of democracy; the worst form mediating institution…except all others.  That spell of unfettered capitalism didn’t work out so well.  At least not for the 10 year olds in coal mines and the folks working 70 hour weeks for subsistence pay.  Conditions are different today?  Yup.  And in large part we can thank the efforts of the labor movement for that.

So if government is increasingly bought and paid for, who can serve as that counterweight?  It has to be civil society—those institutions that are neither government nor private sector. Unions, as Krugman notes, are one such useful institution that serves as a counterweight.  In fact, they’re probably the most important…which is precisely why they are in the crosshairs of politicians like Scott Walker (or those who bankroll him) and why this conflict ultimately is not about the budget, it’s about power.

I find this interesting, because here in NJ the largest unions, such as the NJEA, are viewed in the same light as corporate lobbyists.  One could argue that they have more power within our political system here.

Maybe the idea of "counterweight" is appropriate.

I too have not been thinking of unions and pensions as the source of all our problems.  Noooo.

I thought this thread was started as a sympathy thread for a particular side of what's going on in WI.  Per a more recent post, I guess it was not that at all.  But, hey, 15 16 pages of discussion is good.

A Seattle couple abducted by Somali pirates last Friday was executed this morning.

 

A Seattle couple abducted by Somali pirates last Friday was executed this morning.

Such sad news.

No, but there is great sadness in the Lopez household that someone(s) consider(s) me in the very-conservative camp simply because I do not buy into the "progressive" aspect of unions in 2011.  That label is more fun than 'troll' but less fun than 'evil genius'.  And just as accurate as both.

I twirl my mustache as I smoke my stogey.

Heh.  That, my man, is no stogey.  But it did make me laugh.

I always get Gandalf mixed up with Dumbledore.  Which is better than confusing him with James Gandolfini.